Jacob Holm wrote:
> What is wrong is that it computes (n+1) twice, and it uses a different
> operator to avoid doing the __getitem__ twice. The whole point of the
> exercise was to get as close as possible to what I think the expression
> using "same" should mean. I tried to follow the common style for that
> kind of expansion as seen elsewhere on this list to make that clear.
> Obviously I failed.
>
Unless in a very tight loop, I see no reason why computing n+1 and
__getitem__ twice is a problem. And using temporary variable is
sufficiently clear enough unless your temporary variable's name starts
with _.